battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Weapon variants etc
Something that has come up recently that I think needs to be addressed is the limited/inconsistent merging and splitting of pages for variants of certain weapons. We've come across this issue numerous times in the past and I'd like to settle it once and for all. Something similar came up when we decided to make pagenames for vehicles consistent with the naming policies of the rest of the wiki. So here's essentially what I suggest: Clades. Weapons can be easily separated by their purpose into distinct clades (eg, assault rifles, carbines, battle rifles, LMG/GPMG/HMG, marksman rifle etc). This could be done by their in-game classification, or their IRL classification -- I think it'd be more consistent and less confusing to do it via their IRL classification, but it would work either way. Variants of a weapon in separate clades receive their own page. Upgraded versions of weapons would depend on precisely how different the upgrade is from the original. We won't merge the M14 and M1 Garand, despite the fact that they're pretty closely related, because the two are extremely distinct. Essentially, what I propose is that if an upgrade to a weapon changes how the weapon functions fundamentally -- changing of the action or feeding mechanism, a changing of calibers, et cetera -- the upgrade deserves its own page. If the upgrade is marginal -- eg, the difference between the PKM and PKP, which mostly comes down to furniture composition -- the weapons should share a page. So, for instance, PKP and PKM would merge, AK-47 and AK-74 would remain separate. I think this is a simple, consistent method of deciding what weapons deserve separate pages. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:57, December 22, 2013 (UTC) Discussion I know it is a lot, but if we could all begin to compose a list right here of what would happen to each weapon article in reflection of your proposal, that would probably make it more clear. I support. 00:02, December 23, 2013 (UTC) Here we go again... No the PKP and PKM are just upgraded platforms. They are different weapons by a long shot, simply put. Using your logic we should place all the Su-30, 35 and 37, since they ARE the same thing basically, just upgraded to do X role.-- SlopijoeDown em all 00:08, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :Tywin, I'm talking specifically about weapons. The PKM and PKP are the same weapon anyway. One just has polymer stock and a different barrel. Compared to the M14 vs M1, the PKM and PKP don't even compare. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:14, December 23, 2013 (UTC) Agreed with Jura. Hmm... I really think the AK-12 and AKU-12 should say separate for AK-74, as they look quite different and are different technically frlm the old AKs. Also, would Carbine versions of ARs stay separate? For example, the AKS-74u and XM8c are already separate from their parent weapons... bur the QBZ-95 and QBZ-95B are together. I really do not like two weapons under the same game heading, it looks ugly as heck, IMO. Like QBZ-95 where two versions are both in "Battlefield 4". Overall, I'm sorry to say I Oppose, I think the PKM and PKP (and most variants) should be separate, while the M16/A1/A2/A3/A4 and M60/E4 should be together. The way it is now, the vast majority of weapons are already separate, and I really would hope to keep it that way. 00:22, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :: And the G36 all have the same mechanicalism and the PKP is a lightwieght version of the PKM, it was made for Spetsnaz troops. So lets see: digging to the bottom, the CAR-15 should be merged with the M4 since its technically the same thing (a carbine version of the AR-15) :: Also this counts as IRL if Im not mistaken. Lets merge all the G36 models (including the MG36), the RPKs that recentally got seperated and some others.-- SlopijoeDown em all 00:24, December 23, 2013 (UTC) Are you guys reading what I fucking wrote? This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, now either start offering REAL SUGGESTIONS or get out. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:27, December 23, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, did read it. I don't agree, though. Most of these variant pages have been separated for a long time and look fine that way. Sticking all these variants on one page looks terrible and cluttered. I suggest to keep variants separate, except for very close ones like M16s of different numbers, and the M60. 00:30, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :That's not really a suggestion. That's a request that this amorphous blob we call a "system" remain in place. Confusion, confusion, confusion... There's no rhyme or reason. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:39, December 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Well, if we need a system, how about the system is to leave variants separate, other than certain exceptions? (M16, M60) I think it looks much, much better. 00:41, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :::That would be awful. That goes against all precedents. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:42, December 23, 2013 (UTC) The G36s (Excluding MG) and AKU-12/AK-12 are classic examples of what should be merged, it removes the clutter of a full-blown article. I'd almost agree about the G36s. But the AK-12 and AKU-12... They're different classes (AR/Carbine) and both in BF4. It looks bad to have two variants under one game, like on QBZ-95. What's wrong with a few more pages, that are each less cluttered? 00:38, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :Did you read the part about CLADES in the OP? Besides that, there's nothing wrong with having long pages. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:40, December 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Geez... I understand what you said. I was just responding to X-Alt. Long pages are fine... It's two headers under one header that bugs the heck out of me. 00:42, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :::Multiple subheaders look fine to me. That's why they're designed the way they are. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov < ::::Agree to disagree. It looks cluttered to me with variant subheaders. 00:49, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I should have you relize Xtreme, that you supported the M39 EMR split and at one point the QBZ-95 split for carbine and assault. :::Also saying the AK-12 and AKU-12 should be merged is like saying the M4 and M16 should be merged JSYK...-- SlopijoeDown em all 00:47, December 23, 2013 (UTC) I don't think I know enough about weapons in general to seriously contribute to this discussion, but there is one thing I think might be worth bearing in mind - common sense. I agree that similar variants should be grouped and distinct variants seperated - but I don't believe any single solution can work in every case. At some point, a line must be drawn between very similar and very distinct variants. Also, talk of clades is giving me terrible reminders of the "evolution & palaeobiology" module I should be revising right now, instead of being here - so for the sake of my own guilt and sanity, that's all I have to contribute... - 01:09, December 23, 2013 (UTC) Proposals Again, there should be a list of either weapons that will be merged or the weapons that will be an exception, so as to make clear what is going to happen if this was to be implemented. I'll start the list, feel free to edit it and add/remove entries you agree/disagree with, respectively: 'List of Exceptions' *AK series (AK-47, AK-74, AK-12, and the carbine variants, etc.) - PLR Soldier *AR-15 series (M4, M16, etc.) - PLR Soldier *G36 series (G36K, G36C, etc.) - PLR Soldier *RPK (2 pages, classic RPK and RPK-12) -ArrowTwoActual * * * (continue to add, sign your username) 01:10, December 23, 2013 (UTC) The AK and AKU are exceptions in the sense they have so much in common, its like the QBZ page... The QBZ seperation got rejected so I figured people prefer some of the very-similar weapons merged In my opinion, if we could have certain exceptions, and then make separate articles for all weapons, that would be the best route forward (the exceptions would be listed above). We can talk specifics and differences all day (barrel length of this, cartridge of that, furniture, that one's made out of stamped metal, this has different firing modes, etc. etc. etc.), but they are so minute in the eyes of the average Battlefield player. What we are is the BF Wiki, what we're not, is a firearms wiki. 01:41, December 23, 2013 (UTC) This is taking forever...-- SlopijoeDown em all 01:51, December 23, 2013 (UTC) I've changed my mind - My apologies to everyone for my unnecessary arguing. If weapons were separated by clades and calibers, as well as PLR's exception list, I would be fine with this. 01:56, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :Don't apologize, you and I simply restarted a debate that was stuck in limbo. This needs to be settled. 01:58, December 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Understood, this does need to be settled. I meant my arguing with Yuri, as I do agree with his proposal, as long as we can have the exceptions list. 02:17, December 23, 2013 (UTC) 'Merging Pages for Identical Weapons' An additional concern that doesn't really fit in the main discussion. Some weapons have separate pages even though they're not even variants, they are the exact same thing by a different name. Needs to be merged. *Type 97/QBZ-95B - If we make a QBZ-95B page (It is of a different "clade" than the QBZ-95) then it should be merged with BF2's Type 97. It's literally the exact same weapon witha different name. *M11-87/870 - The "M11-87" in BF2 is a Remington 870, with an (incorrect) different in-game name. *Type 56/SKS - The Type 56 is an SKS, Type 56 is just the Chinese name for it. 01:39, December 23, 2013 (UTC) :Agreed, on all of those examples. We would maintain the original game name for it and place the content onto the "original" article. We would make clear that the Type 56 is a Chinese-manufactured version of the SKS and whatnot, as well. 01:44, December 23, 2013 (UTC) 'A Compromise' I've decided that the best results is this. *QBZ-95 (the Type-95 shortened) shall be split into two parts, one for the carbine the other for the AR version *The PKP and PKM: Status quo. *The G36 merge is going to come sooner or later (every single time we call for merge these pages are screemed at). A vote should be done for this (including or excluding the MG Variant). *If its an upgraded variant then it should be decided from there (we have three M14 page varriants IIRC). *If its name is the same and its a different class (IE: SCAR-L is a carbine in BF2, BC2 and something else). *As for the SCAR-H and SCAR-HV for example: status quo *If the things the same but different name. Then Merge -- SlopijoeDown em all 01:43, December 23, 2013 (UTC) I think this idea the best 23:17, December 23, 2013 (UTC) We ought to be consistent in how we do it, not creating arbitrary exceptions. PKM and PKP should be merged regardless of whatever else happens. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 16:59, December 24, 2013 (UTC) I agree about the PKM and PKP merge (call it "PK Machine Gun"?) and that we should be consistent... most G36 variants should be together, and all of the SCARs, QBZs and ACEs would be separate due to all being of different "clades". 17:08, December 24, 2013 (UTC) :The G36s would depend on whether they're carbines or assault rifles. G36E is a rifle, the others are carbines. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:16, December 24, 2013 (UTC) }}